<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_0520249</id>
	<title>Business-Suitable Document Authentication System?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269088920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ram.loss writes <i>"The company I work for has decided to go paperless for all memos and internal correspondence. In addition to the central administration, the company has three more or less autonomous, physically separated divisions; that means we do not have a common IT infrastructure across all of them. Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division, I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence, although it is not my area of expertise (I have a CompSci degree, but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software). My initial thought was to use a document management system like Plone (this is the system I'm familiar with); from what I have read, that would take care of the management part, but what about authentication? We need each document to be signed, and a fully auditable system that keeps track of who signed what document, who received it and when. It also must take into account the handling of external correspondence in the future, where a recipient outside the company must have the means to return an authenticated document as a response. I'm aware that I'm leaving out a lot of details, like how the documents will be signed, the legal implications, etc., but for the time being I'm only interested in the experiences of the Slashdot crowd with such systems, and hopefully finding out enough information to hand over the matter to (or hiring) somebody more qualified, once I know what to look for. Has anybody out there used a similar system? Am I in way over my head?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ram.loss writes " The company I work for has decided to go paperless for all memos and internal correspondence .
In addition to the central administration , the company has three more or less autonomous , physically separated divisions ; that means we do not have a common IT infrastructure across all of them .
Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division , I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence , although it is not my area of expertise ( I have a CompSci degree , but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software ) .
My initial thought was to use a document management system like Plone ( this is the system I 'm familiar with ) ; from what I have read , that would take care of the management part , but what about authentication ?
We need each document to be signed , and a fully auditable system that keeps track of who signed what document , who received it and when .
It also must take into account the handling of external correspondence in the future , where a recipient outside the company must have the means to return an authenticated document as a response .
I 'm aware that I 'm leaving out a lot of details , like how the documents will be signed , the legal implications , etc. , but for the time being I 'm only interested in the experiences of the Slashdot crowd with such systems , and hopefully finding out enough information to hand over the matter to ( or hiring ) somebody more qualified , once I know what to look for .
Has anybody out there used a similar system ?
Am I in way over my head ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ram.loss writes "The company I work for has decided to go paperless for all memos and internal correspondence.
In addition to the central administration, the company has three more or less autonomous, physically separated divisions; that means we do not have a common IT infrastructure across all of them.
Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division, I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence, although it is not my area of expertise (I have a CompSci degree, but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software).
My initial thought was to use a document management system like Plone (this is the system I'm familiar with); from what I have read, that would take care of the management part, but what about authentication?
We need each document to be signed, and a fully auditable system that keeps track of who signed what document, who received it and when.
It also must take into account the handling of external correspondence in the future, where a recipient outside the company must have the means to return an authenticated document as a response.
I'm aware that I'm leaving out a lot of details, like how the documents will be signed, the legal implications, etc., but for the time being I'm only interested in the experiences of the Slashdot crowd with such systems, and hopefully finding out enough information to hand over the matter to (or hiring) somebody more qualified, once I know what to look for.
Has anybody out there used a similar system?
Am I in way over my head?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549006</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>dyerto</author>
	<datestamp>1269094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SharePoint is not the most elegant or user-friendly system ever made.
I have used it now at work for a few years, and it is used a lot, and does a lot, but nothing is fast or simple to use. New and current users require a lot of training.

It doesn't seem to do anything very well, simply because it tries to do too much.

It will integrate with Microsoft Office and you can embed InfoPath forms etc, but it never seems quite as integrated as the documentation suggests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint is not the most elegant or user-friendly system ever made .
I have used it now at work for a few years , and it is used a lot , and does a lot , but nothing is fast or simple to use .
New and current users require a lot of training .
It does n't seem to do anything very well , simply because it tries to do too much .
It will integrate with Microsoft Office and you can embed InfoPath forms etc , but it never seems quite as integrated as the documentation suggests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint is not the most elegant or user-friendly system ever made.
I have used it now at work for a few years, and it is used a lot, and does a lot, but nothing is fast or simple to use.
New and current users require a lot of training.
It doesn't seem to do anything very well, simply because it tries to do too much.
It will integrate with Microsoft Office and you can embed InfoPath forms etc, but it never seems quite as integrated as the documentation suggests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549516</id>
	<title>Pharmaready DMS</title>
	<author>Gushi</author>
	<datestamp>1269100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pharmaready.com/" title="pharmaready.com" rel="nofollow">PharmaReady</a> [pharmaready.com] has a DMS system that should be able to do what you ask provided you have the webserver available outside your intranet. Instead of passing documents via email, authorized users would upload them themselves and then pass a link. The system is designed with FDA regulations in mind and keeps an audit trail of all activities and has well defined users and user permissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PharmaReady [ pharmaready.com ] has a DMS system that should be able to do what you ask provided you have the webserver available outside your intranet .
Instead of passing documents via email , authorized users would upload them themselves and then pass a link .
The system is designed with FDA regulations in mind and keeps an audit trail of all activities and has well defined users and user permissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PharmaReady [pharmaready.com] has a DMS system that should be able to do what you ask provided you have the webserver available outside your intranet.
Instead of passing documents via email, authorized users would upload them themselves and then pass a link.
The system is designed with FDA regulations in mind and keeps an audit trail of all activities and has well defined users and user permissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31564036</id>
	<title>Try OWL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269197640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you may want to try OWL http://owl.anytimecomm.com/.. it has hashing of records and the resulting hashes are stored of the record..also includes pdf watermarking etc   GPL...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you may want to try OWL http : //owl.anytimecomm.com/.. it has hashing of records and the resulting hashes are stored of the record..also includes pdf watermarking etc GPL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you may want to try OWL http://owl.anytimecomm.com/.. it has hashing of records and the resulting hashes are stored of the record..also includes pdf watermarking etc   GPL...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31552686</id>
	<title>eSignature</title>
	<author>Ksigpaul</author>
	<datestamp>1269084120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're talking about an eSignature implementation that would work inside and outside your intranet then you are attempting something too ambitious.  If you need eSignature type functionality I would suggest something like DocuSign.com.  You definitely want to use an SaaS solution if you need external users in a future release.  DocuSign now has a feature that allows document attachments btw.

If you're just looking for a way to post documents and track viewing then I would suggest something like Acrobat Pro generated and eSigned PDFs that are posted on an Apache HTTP server.  Turn extended access.log logging on and for intranet you could implement something like CA's SiteMinder for NTLM authentication and log the NTLM username/domain in access.log.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're talking about an eSignature implementation that would work inside and outside your intranet then you are attempting something too ambitious .
If you need eSignature type functionality I would suggest something like DocuSign.com .
You definitely want to use an SaaS solution if you need external users in a future release .
DocuSign now has a feature that allows document attachments btw .
If you 're just looking for a way to post documents and track viewing then I would suggest something like Acrobat Pro generated and eSigned PDFs that are posted on an Apache HTTP server .
Turn extended access.log logging on and for intranet you could implement something like CA 's SiteMinder for NTLM authentication and log the NTLM username/domain in access.log .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're talking about an eSignature implementation that would work inside and outside your intranet then you are attempting something too ambitious.
If you need eSignature type functionality I would suggest something like DocuSign.com.
You definitely want to use an SaaS solution if you need external users in a future release.
DocuSign now has a feature that allows document attachments btw.
If you're just looking for a way to post documents and track viewing then I would suggest something like Acrobat Pro generated and eSigned PDFs that are posted on an Apache HTTP server.
Turn extended access.log logging on and for intranet you could implement something like CA's SiteMinder for NTLM authentication and log the NTLM username/domain in access.log.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550950</id>
	<title>Re:Try the LOPSA mailing list</title>
	<author>ram.loss</author>
	<datestamp>1269113760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for your kind offer.  I think I will hold it until I have a more specific request to make, or at least until I know exactly what kind of system will adopt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for your kind offer .
I think I will hold it until I have a more specific request to make , or at least until I know exactly what kind of system will adopt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for your kind offer.
I think I will hold it until I have a more specific request to make, or at least until I know exactly what kind of system will adopt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553228</id>
	<title>Re:The are multiple document management solutions</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1269087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out. Even PGP (if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works) only accomplishes signing. It will not track these documents in the manner you describe.
And PGP has significant problems. People understand what passwords are. They do not have a clue what a 'private key' is, or what it means to use one. This requires significant education effort.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
But the OP's people want the thing they get from a piece of paper with a signature on it --
surely they would be willing to spend some money on it, too?
You cannot expect to switch to new procedures without anyone having to learn anything.</p><blockquote><div><p>And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process. Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The most confusing part IMHO is the web of trust stuff among people who don't know each other.
In a closed organization, I'd expect you to generate a key at the same time you get physical access.
A secretary would sign the key on behalf of the org, and everybody would be told how to set up PGP
to trust the org key.
There'd be an org-wide key server, or they'd simply use the public ones.
There'd be key escrow too I suppose; an unlocked copy of every key kept in a safe.
That's pretty much what's needed, I think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out .
Even PGP ( if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works ) only accomplishes signing .
It will not track these documents in the manner you describe .
And PGP has significant problems .
People understand what passwords are .
They do not have a clue what a 'private key ' is , or what it means to use one .
This requires significant education effort .
But the OP 's people want the thing they get from a piece of paper with a signature on it -- surely they would be willing to spend some money on it , too ?
You can not expect to switch to new procedures without anyone having to learn anything.And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process .
Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them .
The most confusing part IMHO is the web of trust stuff among people who do n't know each other .
In a closed organization , I 'd expect you to generate a key at the same time you get physical access .
A secretary would sign the key on behalf of the org , and everybody would be told how to set up PGP to trust the org key .
There 'd be an org-wide key server , or they 'd simply use the public ones .
There 'd be key escrow too I suppose ; an unlocked copy of every key kept in a safe .
That 's pretty much what 's needed , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out.
Even PGP (if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works) only accomplishes signing.
It will not track these documents in the manner you describe.
And PGP has significant problems.
People understand what passwords are.
They do not have a clue what a 'private key' is, or what it means to use one.
This requires significant education effort.
But the OP's people want the thing they get from a piece of paper with a signature on it --
surely they would be willing to spend some money on it, too?
You cannot expect to switch to new procedures without anyone having to learn anything.And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process.
Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them.
The most confusing part IMHO is the web of trust stuff among people who don't know each other.
In a closed organization, I'd expect you to generate a key at the same time you get physical access.
A secretary would sign the key on behalf of the org, and everybody would be told how to set up PGP
to trust the org key.
There'd be an org-wide key server, or they'd simply use the public ones.
There'd be key escrow too I suppose; an unlocked copy of every key kept in a safe.
That's pretty much what's needed, I think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549956</id>
	<title>NextDocs/Sharepoint</title>
	<author>SemperUbi</author>
	<datestamp>1269105840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We found that Sharepoint didn't offer the level of document authentication that we needed for the FDA-inspected laboratory in our organization.  NextDocs is a 'bolt-on' to Sharepoint that offers an electronic signature feature.  We're rolling that out now and it seems pretty useful.  So if you go the Sharepoint route and it isn't enough, this is worth checking out.  Also, you get to say 'bolt-on' in conversation, with maybe an accidental 'strap-on' now and then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We found that Sharepoint did n't offer the level of document authentication that we needed for the FDA-inspected laboratory in our organization .
NextDocs is a 'bolt-on ' to Sharepoint that offers an electronic signature feature .
We 're rolling that out now and it seems pretty useful .
So if you go the Sharepoint route and it is n't enough , this is worth checking out .
Also , you get to say 'bolt-on ' in conversation , with maybe an accidental 'strap-on ' now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We found that Sharepoint didn't offer the level of document authentication that we needed for the FDA-inspected laboratory in our organization.
NextDocs is a 'bolt-on' to Sharepoint that offers an electronic signature feature.
We're rolling that out now and it seems pretty useful.
So if you go the Sharepoint route and it isn't enough, this is worth checking out.
Also, you get to say 'bolt-on' in conversation, with maybe an accidental 'strap-on' now and then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549978</id>
	<title>yes I am a human</title>
	<author>adaviel</author>
	<datestamp>1269106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's this "You failed to confirm you are a human. Please start from the beginning and try again. If you are a human, we apologize for the inconvenience" thing ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's this " You failed to confirm you are a human .
Please start from the beginning and try again .
If you are a human , we apologize for the inconvenience " thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's this "You failed to confirm you are a human.
Please start from the beginning and try again.
If you are a human, we apologize for the inconvenience" thing ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549052</id>
	<title>alfresco and sharepoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second the "Alfresco" suggestion.  It has Records Management capabilities that satisfy the Government Records keeping requirements (5015.2).  SharePoint is another option that has similar record keeping functionality that can be added.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second the " Alfresco " suggestion .
It has Records Management capabilities that satisfy the Government Records keeping requirements ( 5015.2 ) .
SharePoint is another option that has similar record keeping functionality that can be added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second the "Alfresco" suggestion.
It has Records Management capabilities that satisfy the Government Records keeping requirements (5015.2).
SharePoint is another option that has similar record keeping functionality that can be added.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549130</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1269096300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The #1 problem with SharePoint is idiots who try and use SharePoint for things it was NOT designed to be used for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The # 1 problem with SharePoint is idiots who try and use SharePoint for things it was NOT designed to be used for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The #1 problem with SharePoint is idiots who try and use SharePoint for things it was NOT designed to be used for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548804</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Papers authenticate you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Papers authenticate you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Papers authenticate you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550840</id>
	<title>Re:Lotus NotesDomino</title>
	<author>ajm</author>
	<datestamp>1269112800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the famous last words ought to be "but then he'd be using Lotus Notes". Having to use Lotus Notes is not a pleasant experience for anyone and I don't think you should increase the amount of misery in the world, which is what you'd be doing if they switched to notes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the famous last words ought to be " but then he 'd be using Lotus Notes " .
Having to use Lotus Notes is not a pleasant experience for anyone and I do n't think you should increase the amount of misery in the world , which is what you 'd be doing if they switched to notes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the famous last words ought to be "but then he'd be using Lotus Notes".
Having to use Lotus Notes is not a pleasant experience for anyone and I don't think you should increase the amount of misery in the world, which is what you'd be doing if they switched to notes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31559018</id>
	<title>Evil evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you saying that Microsoft is sometimes <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1589270&amp;cid=31549290" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">evil?</a> [slashdot.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that Microsoft is sometimes evil ?
[ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that Microsoft is sometimes evil?
[slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549710</id>
	<title>Validated systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are looking for is similar to what is used in GLP/GMP validation. You are in over your head. There is software that does what you need, but in order to get it set up so that it is legally binding requires a specialized knowledge set. <br>
It is not that it would be impossible, or even ridiculously difficult, for you to set this up. However, if your company wants to do this in any sort of reasonable time frame (less than a year), you will need to work on this as your primary task. You will, also, need the authority to demand responses from a lot of different people in the company. If you don't have somebody who has the authority to fire anybody in the company backing it (by backing it, I mean insisting on updates every so often and leaning on whoever you are waiting for a response from) , it won't happen. Basically, the story is, this is something that requires company-wide buy in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are looking for is similar to what is used in GLP/GMP validation .
You are in over your head .
There is software that does what you need , but in order to get it set up so that it is legally binding requires a specialized knowledge set .
It is not that it would be impossible , or even ridiculously difficult , for you to set this up .
However , if your company wants to do this in any sort of reasonable time frame ( less than a year ) , you will need to work on this as your primary task .
You will , also , need the authority to demand responses from a lot of different people in the company .
If you do n't have somebody who has the authority to fire anybody in the company backing it ( by backing it , I mean insisting on updates every so often and leaning on whoever you are waiting for a response from ) , it wo n't happen .
Basically , the story is , this is something that requires company-wide buy in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are looking for is similar to what is used in GLP/GMP validation.
You are in over your head.
There is software that does what you need, but in order to get it set up so that it is legally binding requires a specialized knowledge set.
It is not that it would be impossible, or even ridiculously difficult, for you to set this up.
However, if your company wants to do this in any sort of reasonable time frame (less than a year), you will need to work on this as your primary task.
You will, also, need the authority to demand responses from a lot of different people in the company.
If you don't have somebody who has the authority to fire anybody in the company backing it (by backing it, I mean insisting on updates every so often and leaning on whoever you are waiting for a response from) , it won't happen.
Basically, the story is, this is something that requires company-wide buy in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548952</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm not understanding the question...</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1269094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But couldn't something like Postini do the trick for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But could n't something like Postini do the trick for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But couldn't something like Postini do the trick for you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549846</id>
	<title>ECM</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1269104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I am misunderstanding the inquiry but it sound like you are asking about <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=enterprise+content+management&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g1g-c5g2g-c2&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.com">enterprise content management</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I am misunderstanding the inquiry but it sound like you are asking about enterprise content management [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I am misunderstanding the inquiry but it sound like you are asking about enterprise content management [google.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549036</id>
	<title>Re:What? Are you trying to do?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1269095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload.</i></p><p>It's entirely possible that most of the features requested will never be used and is someone's idea of an ideal scenario.  What's being described sounds, at least to me, like the functioning of a court or parts of a large law firm.  The legal field has traditionally relied on paper (lots of it, along with multiple copies for everyone), but I'm sure even they've moved on to computerised record keeping.  Maybe someone else an chime in.</p><p>Me, I've alway liked carbon paper.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload.It 's entirely possible that most of the features requested will never be used and is someone 's idea of an ideal scenario .
What 's being described sounds , at least to me , like the functioning of a court or parts of a large law firm .
The legal field has traditionally relied on paper ( lots of it , along with multiple copies for everyone ) , but I 'm sure even they 've moved on to computerised record keeping .
Maybe someone else an chime in.Me , I 've alway liked carbon paper .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload.It's entirely possible that most of the features requested will never be used and is someone's idea of an ideal scenario.
What's being described sounds, at least to me, like the functioning of a court or parts of a large law firm.
The legal field has traditionally relied on paper (lots of it, along with multiple copies for everyone), but I'm sure even they've moved on to computerised record keeping.
Maybe someone else an chime in.Me, I've alway liked carbon paper.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906</id>
	<title>PGP + really any collaboration software</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1269093720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give every a copy of PGP or gnupg and use your favorite collaboration program to store and version the documents.  I would consider just signing the docs and not encrypting them when they are not sensitive, encryption just adds risk that you could lose data more easily.  Its really important to know that it really was the comptroller who authorized the PO for that new delivery van but its not a secret the company purchased a new truck.</p><p>This should also give you some flexibility going forward.  If you don't like the work flow solution you don't have to change the authentication solution or the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give every a copy of PGP or gnupg and use your favorite collaboration program to store and version the documents .
I would consider just signing the docs and not encrypting them when they are not sensitive , encryption just adds risk that you could lose data more easily .
Its really important to know that it really was the comptroller who authorized the PO for that new delivery van but its not a secret the company purchased a new truck.This should also give you some flexibility going forward .
If you do n't like the work flow solution you do n't have to change the authentication solution or the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give every a copy of PGP or gnupg and use your favorite collaboration program to store and version the documents.
I would consider just signing the docs and not encrypting them when they are not sensitive, encryption just adds risk that you could lose data more easily.
Its really important to know that it really was the comptroller who authorized the PO for that new delivery van but its not a secret the company purchased a new truck.This should also give you some flexibility going forward.
If you don't like the work flow solution you don't have to change the authentication solution or the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31568456</id>
	<title>90\% no proved signature. How done at present?</title>
	<author>eionmac</author>
	<datestamp>1269273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How and what needs 'proven signature' usual ratio is 90\% unproven signature, 10\% or less needs proven signature.</p><p>How do you prove at present?<br>Do you check every signature against a  secured proven typical signature mandate card? If not then you do not need to do it electronically as you do not do it manually. Ask 'boss' how he proves his signature on any document he signs!</p><p>Old Comecon Banks used to have a photograph taken at point of signature for 'foreign exchange' and appended it to logged file (also took fingerprint) much office filling but good proof for any court case thereafter. Do you need this standard of proof?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How and what needs 'proven signature ' usual ratio is 90 \ % unproven signature , 10 \ % or less needs proven signature.How do you prove at present ? Do you check every signature against a secured proven typical signature mandate card ?
If not then you do not need to do it electronically as you do not do it manually .
Ask 'boss ' how he proves his signature on any document he signs ! Old Comecon Banks used to have a photograph taken at point of signature for 'foreign exchange ' and appended it to logged file ( also took fingerprint ) much office filling but good proof for any court case thereafter .
Do you need this standard of proof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How and what needs 'proven signature' usual ratio is 90\% unproven signature, 10\% or less needs proven signature.How do you prove at present?Do you check every signature against a  secured proven typical signature mandate card?
If not then you do not need to do it electronically as you do not do it manually.
Ask 'boss' how he proves his signature on any document he signs!Old Comecon Banks used to have a photograph taken at point of signature for 'foreign exchange' and appended it to logged file (also took fingerprint) much office filling but good proof for any court case thereafter.
Do you need this standard of proof?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549396</id>
	<title>depends on what you mean by 'signing'</title>
	<author>BuffPustule</author>
	<datestamp>1269099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question I have is what you mean by 'signing' a document.

</p><p>If you mean that a piece of paper has been physically signed by someone and then scanned and an image retained, then you need a document imaging system.

</p><p>If you mean to go paperless and can get people to fill out online forms, you can make the case that they are doing the electronic equivalent of signing when they log into the system with their own username and password AND they click on a given button (eg. "Submit" or "Apply Signature") and perhaps type in their initials into a small text field.

</p><p>There are at least two ways you can handle online forms with Plone: PloneFormGen or custom content types via Archetypes.  If you use custom content types, the History tab shows you changes to the content item (who, when), and if you have a workflow assigned to it, the workflow history is retained as well, showing when the item was transitioned to, say, the "signed" state and by whom.  If you use PloneFormGen, simply include in the form two hidden and/or non-user-editable fields (datetime with default value the current date/time, and username with default value the currently logged in user).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I have is what you mean by 'signing ' a document .
If you mean that a piece of paper has been physically signed by someone and then scanned and an image retained , then you need a document imaging system .
If you mean to go paperless and can get people to fill out online forms , you can make the case that they are doing the electronic equivalent of signing when they log into the system with their own username and password AND they click on a given button ( eg .
" Submit " or " Apply Signature " ) and perhaps type in their initials into a small text field .
There are at least two ways you can handle online forms with Plone : PloneFormGen or custom content types via Archetypes .
If you use custom content types , the History tab shows you changes to the content item ( who , when ) , and if you have a workflow assigned to it , the workflow history is retained as well , showing when the item was transitioned to , say , the " signed " state and by whom .
If you use PloneFormGen , simply include in the form two hidden and/or non-user-editable fields ( datetime with default value the current date/time , and username with default value the currently logged in user ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I have is what you mean by 'signing' a document.
If you mean that a piece of paper has been physically signed by someone and then scanned and an image retained, then you need a document imaging system.
If you mean to go paperless and can get people to fill out online forms, you can make the case that they are doing the electronic equivalent of signing when they log into the system with their own username and password AND they click on a given button (eg.
"Submit" or "Apply Signature") and perhaps type in their initials into a small text field.
There are at least two ways you can handle online forms with Plone: PloneFormGen or custom content types via Archetypes.
If you use custom content types, the History tab shows you changes to the content item (who, when), and if you have a workflow assigned to it, the workflow history is retained as well, showing when the item was transitioned to, say, the "signed" state and by whom.
If you use PloneFormGen, simply include in the form two hidden and/or non-user-editable fields (datetime with default value the current date/time, and username with default value the currently logged in user).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549522</id>
	<title>Re:All Good Suggestions For the Most Part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As for signing of documents, PDF is the only format that handles that internally, though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys, though I think the hassle would not be welcome.</p><p>Well, ODF 1.2 will standardize signing too. OpenOffice.org already implements it in a easy to use way for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for signing of documents , PDF is the only format that handles that internally , though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys , though I think the hassle would not be welcome.Well , ODF 1.2 will standardize signing too .
OpenOffice.org already implements it in a easy to use way for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for signing of documents, PDF is the only format that handles that internally, though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys, though I think the hassle would not be welcome.Well, ODF 1.2 will standardize signing too.
OpenOffice.org already implements it in a easy to use way for some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548868</id>
	<title>Bulletin board or PDM software and Acrobat</title>
	<author>larwe</author>
	<datestamp>1269093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the internal case, a bulletin board style web-based system's PM facility will provide you with delivery and confirmation of receipt. Or you could go the whole hog and install PDM software like Agile... but I doubt you want to do that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

For the external case, I suggest using fillable PDF documents, with a secure signature generated by the addressee (this is instant and free in Adobe Reader).</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the internal case , a bulletin board style web-based system 's PM facility will provide you with delivery and confirmation of receipt .
Or you could go the whole hog and install PDM software like Agile... but I doubt you want to do that ; ) For the external case , I suggest using fillable PDF documents , with a secure signature generated by the addressee ( this is instant and free in Adobe Reader ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the internal case, a bulletin board style web-based system's PM facility will provide you with delivery and confirmation of receipt.
Or you could go the whole hog and install PDM software like Agile... but I doubt you want to do that ;)

For the external case, I suggest using fillable PDF documents, with a secure signature generated by the addressee (this is instant and free in Adobe Reader).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549386</id>
	<title>YUO` FAIL IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hav3 somebody just to 4ave regular</htmltext>
<tokenext>hav3 somebody just to 4ave regular</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hav3 somebody just to 4ave regular</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549176</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>pasamio</author>
	<datestamp>1269096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like document management, lists, wiki's and information sharing...wait</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like document management , lists , wiki 's and information sharing...wait</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like document management, lists, wiki's and information sharing...wait</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31557940</id>
	<title>Re:What? Are you trying to do?</title>
	<author>titten</author>
	<datestamp>1269190620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what Plone can do. But you know it, that could help you save a lot of additional work.<br>As for digital documents, you don't only want them to be signed. You want to know that nobody tampered with it too.</p><p>I would go for PGP/GPG. Even if it has to be manually applied before you stuff it into Plone. Plone may have PGP functionality, a quick Google search seems to indicate it.</p><p>In short, with PGP, you distribute your public key to as many as you can while keeping your private key secret.<br>Somebody encrypts a message or document with your public key, and you're the only one who can read it.<br>But if you encrypt or sign a document with your public key, everybody else can read it. With the added benefit that they can be certain that you signed it. (Because you're the only one that has access to your private key.)</p><p>In addition to signing, you can also make sure that nobody changed your document after you signed it.</p><p>If you bring this into your company, you'll not only be able to sign and verify documents. You'll also get secure email communication, which is a Good Thing(tm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what Plone can do .
But you know it , that could help you save a lot of additional work.As for digital documents , you do n't only want them to be signed .
You want to know that nobody tampered with it too.I would go for PGP/GPG .
Even if it has to be manually applied before you stuff it into Plone .
Plone may have PGP functionality , a quick Google search seems to indicate it.In short , with PGP , you distribute your public key to as many as you can while keeping your private key secret.Somebody encrypts a message or document with your public key , and you 're the only one who can read it.But if you encrypt or sign a document with your public key , everybody else can read it .
With the added benefit that they can be certain that you signed it .
( Because you 're the only one that has access to your private key .
) In addition to signing , you can also make sure that nobody changed your document after you signed it.If you bring this into your company , you 'll not only be able to sign and verify documents .
You 'll also get secure email communication , which is a Good Thing ( tm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what Plone can do.
But you know it, that could help you save a lot of additional work.As for digital documents, you don't only want them to be signed.
You want to know that nobody tampered with it too.I would go for PGP/GPG.
Even if it has to be manually applied before you stuff it into Plone.
Plone may have PGP functionality, a quick Google search seems to indicate it.In short, with PGP, you distribute your public key to as many as you can while keeping your private key secret.Somebody encrypts a message or document with your public key, and you're the only one who can read it.But if you encrypt or sign a document with your public key, everybody else can read it.
With the added benefit that they can be certain that you signed it.
(Because you're the only one that has access to your private key.
)In addition to signing, you can also make sure that nobody changed your document after you signed it.If you bring this into your company, you'll not only be able to sign and verify documents.
You'll also get secure email communication, which is a Good Thing(tm).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550594</id>
	<title>Re:What? Are you trying to do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, original poster here.</p><p>Yes, I am aware there are too many details left hanging, that's why I need to hear from someone that has worked with a similar system to at least have an idea what kind of project are we dealing with.  From listening to the managers, we need some serious talking to do before a formal proposal is made.</p><p>For starters, there's not much money available for the hypothetical system, so that will probably be a showstopper.  When i say "documents" I mean anything that when printed on paper has to have a signature (as in "written with a pen") that identifies who wrote it/approved it, most likely a PDF file when talking about an electronic document.</p><p>I share your bafflement about the purpose of all this, presumably they want to eliminate all the time needed to move paper around four different locations, and it can't be done by e-mail due to the signature requirements (internal rules, legal implications among other things, lets not delve too much into that just now).  But I think they really have not thought through all the added costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , original poster here.Yes , I am aware there are too many details left hanging , that 's why I need to hear from someone that has worked with a similar system to at least have an idea what kind of project are we dealing with .
From listening to the managers , we need some serious talking to do before a formal proposal is made.For starters , there 's not much money available for the hypothetical system , so that will probably be a showstopper .
When i say " documents " I mean anything that when printed on paper has to have a signature ( as in " written with a pen " ) that identifies who wrote it/approved it , most likely a PDF file when talking about an electronic document.I share your bafflement about the purpose of all this , presumably they want to eliminate all the time needed to move paper around four different locations , and it ca n't be done by e-mail due to the signature requirements ( internal rules , legal implications among other things , lets not delve too much into that just now ) .
But I think they really have not thought through all the added costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, original poster here.Yes, I am aware there are too many details left hanging, that's why I need to hear from someone that has worked with a similar system to at least have an idea what kind of project are we dealing with.
From listening to the managers, we need some serious talking to do before a formal proposal is made.For starters, there's not much money available for the hypothetical system, so that will probably be a showstopper.
When i say "documents" I mean anything that when printed on paper has to have a signature (as in "written with a pen") that identifies who wrote it/approved it, most likely a PDF file when talking about an electronic document.I share your bafflement about the purpose of all this, presumably they want to eliminate all the time needed to move paper around four different locations, and it can't be done by e-mail due to the signature requirements (internal rules, legal implications among other things, lets not delve too much into that just now).
But I think they really have not thought through all the added costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551202</id>
	<title>Re:Lotus NotesDomino</title>
	<author>kirthn</author>
	<datestamp>1269115680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>additionally it's a 15 year or more proven technology, with a lot of programming and developping possibilities...from C to Java to LotusScript with already from long time a ago a range of protocols from X500 to LDAP to XML (already from year 2000 included)....</p><p>No other product has that track record<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) (and no, I don't work in a IT-related job/environmet/sales or business related)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>additionally it 's a 15 year or more proven technology , with a lot of programming and developping possibilities...from C to Java to LotusScript with already from long time a ago a range of protocols from X500 to LDAP to XML ( already from year 2000 included ) ....No other product has that track record ; ) ( and no , I do n't work in a IT-related job/environmet/sales or business related ) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>additionally it's a 15 year or more proven technology, with a lot of programming and developping possibilities...from C to Java to LotusScript with already from long time a ago a range of protocols from X500 to LDAP to XML (already from year 2000 included)....No other product has that track record ;) (and no, I don't work in a IT-related job/environmet/sales or business related) ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549064</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1363" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">Just be aware, that Sharepoint is a trojan horse</a> [zdnet.com] and Microsoft will suck you dry at some point for choosing it. If you are fine with that (likely because you intend to have a new job by then), go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just be aware , that Sharepoint is a trojan horse [ zdnet.com ] and Microsoft will suck you dry at some point for choosing it .
If you are fine with that ( likely because you intend to have a new job by then ) , go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just be aware, that Sharepoint is a trojan horse [zdnet.com] and Microsoft will suck you dry at some point for choosing it.
If you are fine with that (likely because you intend to have a new job by then), go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551678</id>
	<title>Re:Ask the other divisions?</title>
	<author>ram.loss</author>
	<datestamp>1269076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there will be talks with representatives of all divisions. We're just in the process of gathering the necessary information to at least have something concrete to talk about.<br>Another factor to consider is the fact that the IT department at the central offices is not as undermanned, although they have their hands full.  So I need to cooperate with them if a solution is eventually adopted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there will be talks with representatives of all divisions .
We 're just in the process of gathering the necessary information to at least have something concrete to talk about.Another factor to consider is the fact that the IT department at the central offices is not as undermanned , although they have their hands full .
So I need to cooperate with them if a solution is eventually adopted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there will be talks with representatives of all divisions.
We're just in the process of gathering the necessary information to at least have something concrete to talk about.Another factor to consider is the fact that the IT department at the central offices is not as undermanned, although they have their hands full.
So I need to cooperate with them if a solution is eventually adopted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549890</id>
	<title>Sendside may be perfect</title>
	<author>pyite69</author>
	<datestamp>1269105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>https://www.sendside.com</p><p>Secure document management, electronic signatures, and many other features, using a SaaS model like Salesforce</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //www.sendside.comSecure document management , electronic signatures , and many other features , using a SaaS model like Salesforce</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://www.sendside.comSecure document management, electronic signatures, and many other features, using a SaaS model like Salesforce</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549546</id>
	<title>Open Text FirstClass &amp; Social Media</title>
	<author>kannontech</author>
	<datestamp>1269100680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open Text FirstClass &amp; Social Media are easy to manage secure messaging, document management, and online communication and collaboration solutions that can do what you need without large IT infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Text FirstClass &amp; Social Media are easy to manage secure messaging , document management , and online communication and collaboration solutions that can do what you need without large IT infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Text FirstClass &amp; Social Media are easy to manage secure messaging, document management, and online communication and collaboration solutions that can do what you need without large IT infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549030</id>
	<title>alfresco</title>
	<author>bmsleight</author>
	<datestamp>1269095220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been looking at <a href="http://www.alfresco.com./" title="www.alfresco.com">http://www.alfresco.com./</a> [www.alfresco.com] Looks like it will be included in Ubuntu soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been looking at http : //www.alfresco.com./ [ www.alfresco.com ] Looks like it will be included in Ubuntu soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been looking at http://www.alfresco.com./ [www.alfresco.com] Looks like it will be included in Ubuntu soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548914</id>
	<title>Re:Memos and Correspondence....</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1269093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or use email in combination with company-wide smartcards/PGP. That should take care of the signing part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use email in combination with company-wide smartcards/PGP .
That should take care of the signing part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use email in combination with company-wide smartcards/PGP.
That should take care of the signing part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548866</id>
	<title>How big is the company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is a large company, don't cheap out there.  Budget the right amount of money and buy what's available and implement it properly.    That means baking it in seamlessly with the business process</p><p>It's okay to do that y'know.  Sometimes saving money costs the company too much money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is a large company , do n't cheap out there .
Budget the right amount of money and buy what 's available and implement it properly .
That means baking it in seamlessly with the business processIt 's okay to do that y'know .
Sometimes saving money costs the company too much money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is a large company, don't cheap out there.
Budget the right amount of money and buy what's available and implement it properly.
That means baking it in seamlessly with the business processIt's okay to do that y'know.
Sometimes saving money costs the company too much money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551516</id>
	<title>Consider XAdES</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1269117900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must admit I'm not terribly familiar with the problem, but consider <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/XAdES/" title="w3.org">XAdES</a> [w3.org] (XML Advanced Electronic Signatures) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAdES" title="wikipedia.org">wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]) as requirement of signing your documents, because it seems a reasonably well backed standard if  ETSI standardized it since 2002 and the EU <a href="http://www.telecomforum.eu/WebSite/OurServices/Plugtests/2008XADES.aspx" title="telecomforum.eu">encourages it</a> [telecomforum.eu] for intergovernmental correspondence. It also seems future-proof if it has the signing algorithm as a parameter instead of predefined.
<br>
Also, the upcoming ODF 1.2 supports it (see ODF spec part 3 chapter 4).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must admit I 'm not terribly familiar with the problem , but consider XAdES [ w3.org ] ( XML Advanced Electronic Signatures ) wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ) as requirement of signing your documents , because it seems a reasonably well backed standard if ETSI standardized it since 2002 and the EU encourages it [ telecomforum.eu ] for intergovernmental correspondence .
It also seems future-proof if it has the signing algorithm as a parameter instead of predefined .
Also , the upcoming ODF 1.2 supports it ( see ODF spec part 3 chapter 4 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must admit I'm not terribly familiar with the problem, but consider XAdES [w3.org] (XML Advanced Electronic Signatures) wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) as requirement of signing your documents, because it seems a reasonably well backed standard if  ETSI standardized it since 2002 and the EU encourages it [telecomforum.eu] for intergovernmental correspondence.
It also seems future-proof if it has the signing algorithm as a parameter instead of predefined.
Also, the upcoming ODF 1.2 supports it (see ODF spec part 3 chapter 4).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549220</id>
	<title>The are multiple document management solutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out.  Even PGP (if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works) only accomplishes signing.  It will not track these documents in the manner you describe.</p><p>And PGP has significant problems.  People understand what passwords are.  They do not have a clue what a 'private key' is, or what it means to use one.  This requires significant education effort.  And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process.  Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them.</p><p>And, unfortunately, PGP is not widely supported in email clients outside of the GNU/Linux sphere.  Even Thunderbird requires a plugin for adequate support.  Everybody else seems to have assumed that the bletcherous, ugly, stupid mess that is an X.509 certificate is what people will use, if they use anything at all.</p><p>In my opinion, this state of affairs is ripe for some kind of solution.  It was one of the problems I meant to address when I started <a href="http://www.cakem.net/" title="cakem.net">CAKE</a> [cakem.net] years ago.  But that project has stalled out because of time and a the general fact that unless I'm being paid, I tend to drop things as soon as I prove to myself that they work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out .
Even PGP ( if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works ) only accomplishes signing .
It will not track these documents in the manner you describe.And PGP has significant problems .
People understand what passwords are .
They do not have a clue what a 'private key ' is , or what it means to use one .
This requires significant education effort .
And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process .
Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them.And , unfortunately , PGP is not widely supported in email clients outside of the GNU/Linux sphere .
Even Thunderbird requires a plugin for adequate support .
Everybody else seems to have assumed that the bletcherous , ugly , stupid mess that is an X.509 certificate is what people will use , if they use anything at all.In my opinion , this state of affairs is ripe for some kind of solution .
It was one of the problems I meant to address when I started CAKE [ cakem.net ] years ago .
But that project has stalled out because of time and a the general fact that unless I 'm being paid , I tend to drop things as soon as I prove to myself that they work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no real authentication systems that accomplish the goals you lay out.
Even PGP (if you can convince people to use it and educate people on how it works) only accomplishes signing.
It will not track these documents in the manner you describe.And PGP has significant problems.
People understand what passwords are.
They do not have a clue what a 'private key' is, or what it means to use one.
This requires significant education effort.
And unfortunately the user interfaces surrounding products that use PGP do little to help this educational process.
Most of them seem to be designed by crypto-geeks who assume that everybody already knows these things and just wants a convenient way to manage them.And, unfortunately, PGP is not widely supported in email clients outside of the GNU/Linux sphere.
Even Thunderbird requires a plugin for adequate support.
Everybody else seems to have assumed that the bletcherous, ugly, stupid mess that is an X.509 certificate is what people will use, if they use anything at all.In my opinion, this state of affairs is ripe for some kind of solution.
It was one of the problems I meant to address when I started CAKE [cakem.net] years ago.
But that project has stalled out because of time and a the general fact that unless I'm being paid, I tend to drop things as soon as I prove to myself that they work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549438</id>
	<title>Ask the other divisions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize your company may not make it easy to do so, or the other departments may not help but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Have you considered, since you're the only one in your portion that asking them for help may useful?</p><p>I'm making a lot of assumptions about an ideal situation that may not apply to you, I realize that, so it may not be possible for you.</p><p>If it were though, you might find that you can save yourself a lot of time just by working with the other groups.</p><p>You could also very well create a new position for yourself, pull all 3 divisions together and save some money in IT and you might end up in charge of all of them.  (if you want to do that, personally I still prefer to be in the trenches).</p><p>Either way, you may find that they've already done this research and found something that didn't work for them, but might work for you, OR might work for everyone if you all got together to do it, versus not being cost effective for one group to do it.</p><p>A company I worked for was bought out a long time ago, we basically continued to operate as 2 companies under one name for a long time.  Then our IT department started pushing to integrate, taking the best parts of both companies and merging into a better structure overall.  We ended up saving a lot of money.</p><p>Interestingly enough, our IT was killed off and released shortly after we suggested that moving the web servers that had a window view of wall street to somewhere that we could run them for 10 years for the same cost as single day in their current data center<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  So you may want to be careful what you suggest.</p><p>Another interesting twist was that shortly after we got 'released', the company was bought once again, by a company near Atlanta, which promptly closed all the offices on Manhattan, including the one that was chosen over us.  Senior management from our original company passed along the word that the new buyers made it clear that stupid choices like killing our data center and keeping one in Manhattan is exactly why they were now going to be looking for new jobs themselves.</p><p>We were vindicated, but some of us were still unemployed unfortunately.  Either way, it may still be worth your while to try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize your company may not make it easy to do so , or the other departments may not help but ...Have you considered , since you 're the only one in your portion that asking them for help may useful ? I 'm making a lot of assumptions about an ideal situation that may not apply to you , I realize that , so it may not be possible for you.If it were though , you might find that you can save yourself a lot of time just by working with the other groups.You could also very well create a new position for yourself , pull all 3 divisions together and save some money in IT and you might end up in charge of all of them .
( if you want to do that , personally I still prefer to be in the trenches ) .Either way , you may find that they 've already done this research and found something that did n't work for them , but might work for you , OR might work for everyone if you all got together to do it , versus not being cost effective for one group to do it.A company I worked for was bought out a long time ago , we basically continued to operate as 2 companies under one name for a long time .
Then our IT department started pushing to integrate , taking the best parts of both companies and merging into a better structure overall .
We ended up saving a lot of money.Interestingly enough , our IT was killed off and released shortly after we suggested that moving the web servers that had a window view of wall street to somewhere that we could run them for 10 years for the same cost as single day in their current data center ... So you may want to be careful what you suggest.Another interesting twist was that shortly after we got 'released ' , the company was bought once again , by a company near Atlanta , which promptly closed all the offices on Manhattan , including the one that was chosen over us .
Senior management from our original company passed along the word that the new buyers made it clear that stupid choices like killing our data center and keeping one in Manhattan is exactly why they were now going to be looking for new jobs themselves.We were vindicated , but some of us were still unemployed unfortunately .
Either way , it may still be worth your while to try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize your company may not make it easy to do so, or the other departments may not help but ...Have you considered, since you're the only one in your portion that asking them for help may useful?I'm making a lot of assumptions about an ideal situation that may not apply to you, I realize that, so it may not be possible for you.If it were though, you might find that you can save yourself a lot of time just by working with the other groups.You could also very well create a new position for yourself, pull all 3 divisions together and save some money in IT and you might end up in charge of all of them.
(if you want to do that, personally I still prefer to be in the trenches).Either way, you may find that they've already done this research and found something that didn't work for them, but might work for you, OR might work for everyone if you all got together to do it, versus not being cost effective for one group to do it.A company I worked for was bought out a long time ago, we basically continued to operate as 2 companies under one name for a long time.
Then our IT department started pushing to integrate, taking the best parts of both companies and merging into a better structure overall.
We ended up saving a lot of money.Interestingly enough, our IT was killed off and released shortly after we suggested that moving the web servers that had a window view of wall street to somewhere that we could run them for 10 years for the same cost as single day in their current data center ...  So you may want to be careful what you suggest.Another interesting twist was that shortly after we got 'released', the company was bought once again, by a company near Atlanta, which promptly closed all the offices on Manhattan, including the one that was chosen over us.
Senior management from our original company passed along the word that the new buyers made it clear that stupid choices like killing our data center and keeping one in Manhattan is exactly why they were now going to be looking for new jobs themselves.We were vindicated, but some of us were still unemployed unfortunately.
Either way, it may still be worth your while to try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31570886</id>
	<title>Re:Memos and Correspondence....</title>
	<author>rmm4pi8</author>
	<datestamp>1269280140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're not crazy, though there are tradeoffs:</p><p>The bad:  with email instead of dedicated knowledge management, you'll pay a lot more in licensing, hardware, and maintenance for each bit of bolt-on functionality that you need/want, and even then you won't end up with as much functionality embedded in as slick an interface.</p><p>The good:  email is a huge industry, so you really can find some provider to add functionality for each line-item requirement (traceability, search, archiving, even workflow), and if you stuff those things transparently into their existing clients/servers they might actually use the stuff.  The return on investment of the unused product is always zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're not crazy , though there are tradeoffs : The bad : with email instead of dedicated knowledge management , you 'll pay a lot more in licensing , hardware , and maintenance for each bit of bolt-on functionality that you need/want , and even then you wo n't end up with as much functionality embedded in as slick an interface.The good : email is a huge industry , so you really can find some provider to add functionality for each line-item requirement ( traceability , search , archiving , even workflow ) , and if you stuff those things transparently into their existing clients/servers they might actually use the stuff .
The return on investment of the unused product is always zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're not crazy, though there are tradeoffs:The bad:  with email instead of dedicated knowledge management, you'll pay a lot more in licensing, hardware, and maintenance for each bit of bolt-on functionality that you need/want, and even then you won't end up with as much functionality embedded in as slick an interface.The good:  email is a huge industry, so you really can find some provider to add functionality for each line-item requirement (traceability, search, archiving, even workflow), and if you stuff those things transparently into their existing clients/servers they might actually use the stuff.
The return on investment of the unused product is always zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548842</id>
	<title>Try Knowledgetree</title>
	<author>PdbAqB</author>
	<datestamp>1269093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try Knowledgetree - It's open source, has workflow and it is fully audited: <a href="http://www.knowledgetree.com/solutions/industry-solutions" title="knowledgetree.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.knowledgetree.com/solutions/industry-solutions</a> [knowledgetree.com]
We use it in our law firm (I manage it - we are relatively small <a href="http://1p.com.au/" title="1p.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://1p.com.au/</a> [1p.com.au] and it runs without any specific expertise.  I have previously tried other solutions without success. We also really appreciate knowledgetree's ability to interact seamlessly with MSOffice etc.
Good luck</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Knowledgetree - It 's open source , has workflow and it is fully audited : http : //www.knowledgetree.com/solutions/industry-solutions [ knowledgetree.com ] We use it in our law firm ( I manage it - we are relatively small http : //1p.com.au/ [ 1p.com.au ] and it runs without any specific expertise .
I have previously tried other solutions without success .
We also really appreciate knowledgetree 's ability to interact seamlessly with MSOffice etc .
Good luck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Knowledgetree - It's open source, has workflow and it is fully audited: http://www.knowledgetree.com/solutions/industry-solutions [knowledgetree.com]
We use it in our law firm (I manage it - we are relatively small http://1p.com.au/ [1p.com.au] and it runs without any specific expertise.
I have previously tried other solutions without success.
We also really appreciate knowledgetree's ability to interact seamlessly with MSOffice etc.
Good luck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549296</id>
	<title>Alfresco rocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alfresco can be a pain to get setup the first time, (though they have improved it a lot)  it has user and group based access that can reference Active directory using NTLM, Kerberos or LDAP and single sign on is an option (so it pickups desktop credentials so you never use a username and password).  you can have windows file shares through CIFS/SMP that you transparently sign on to from windows.</p><p>it even has the SharePoint protocol support so you dont have to download a document to edit it....you can edit online.</p><p>it also has document conversions, workflows, rules, can receive and file documents via email, and has a robust api</p><p>the "who recieved it when bit" is not built in but you could easily extend it its functionality.  it will though keep track of any modifications.  It does have auditing that i have never explored and may keep greater track of things than i am aware</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alfresco can be a pain to get setup the first time , ( though they have improved it a lot ) it has user and group based access that can reference Active directory using NTLM , Kerberos or LDAP and single sign on is an option ( so it pickups desktop credentials so you never use a username and password ) .
you can have windows file shares through CIFS/SMP that you transparently sign on to from windows.it even has the SharePoint protocol support so you dont have to download a document to edit it....you can edit online.it also has document conversions , workflows , rules , can receive and file documents via email , and has a robust apithe " who recieved it when bit " is not built in but you could easily extend it its functionality .
it will though keep track of any modifications .
It does have auditing that i have never explored and may keep greater track of things than i am aware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alfresco can be a pain to get setup the first time, (though they have improved it a lot)  it has user and group based access that can reference Active directory using NTLM, Kerberos or LDAP and single sign on is an option (so it pickups desktop credentials so you never use a username and password).
you can have windows file shares through CIFS/SMP that you transparently sign on to from windows.it even has the SharePoint protocol support so you dont have to download a document to edit it....you can edit online.it also has document conversions, workflows, rules, can receive and file documents via email, and has a robust apithe "who recieved it when bit" is not built in but you could easily extend it its functionality.
it will though keep track of any modifications.
It does have auditing that i have never explored and may keep greater track of things than i am aware</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549428</id>
	<title>Try http://indorse-tech.com/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://indorse-tech.com/" title="indorse-tech.com" rel="nofollow">http://indorse-tech.com/</a> [indorse-tech.com] -- the have a software product that signs your documents and can track when people open and view them via a "Call Home" technology.  Runs on top of sharepoint or stand alone, iirc.  Tracks Microsoft Office, PDF, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //indorse-tech.com/ [ indorse-tech.com ] -- the have a software product that signs your documents and can track when people open and view them via a " Call Home " technology .
Runs on top of sharepoint or stand alone , iirc .
Tracks Microsoft Office , PDF , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://indorse-tech.com/ [indorse-tech.com] -- the have a software product that signs your documents and can track when people open and view them via a "Call Home" technology.
Runs on top of sharepoint or stand alone, iirc.
Tracks Microsoft Office, PDF, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549118</id>
	<title>Sense/net, SharePoint, OpenText, Interwoven</title>
	<author>charnov</author>
	<datestamp>1269096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sense/net, SharePoint, OpenText, Interwoven ordered by cost. My personal favorite is Interwoven TeamSite as it hooks directly into Office.<br>Documentum is awesome but so is the price...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sense/net , SharePoint , OpenText , Interwoven ordered by cost .
My personal favorite is Interwoven TeamSite as it hooks directly into Office.Documentum is awesome but so is the price.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sense/net, SharePoint, OpenText, Interwoven ordered by cost.
My personal favorite is Interwoven TeamSite as it hooks directly into Office.Documentum is awesome but so is the price...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548832</id>
	<title>Business suitable?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about iButton crypto cufflinks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about iButton crypto cufflinks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about iButton crypto cufflinks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549062</id>
	<title>Voltage Secure-stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently got some data from a health agency, and they sent it using Voltage SecureMail.</p><p>Not sure of the exact specifics, but it seems that when they send an email with a secure attachment the file is stripped, stuffed on a repository, then I get a link. I have to register and sign in, then I can download the attachment. Personally I'd rather all attachments worked this way rather than people sending individual multi-megabyte files over SMTP to multiple recipients, most of which wont bother reading them... But I digress.</p><p>
&nbsp; So I had a look at the Voltage web site and it seems they may be a solution provider who can synergise your workflow experience management:</p><p><a href="http://www.voltage.com/products/" title="voltage.com">http://www.voltage.com/products/</a> [voltage.com]</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm sure they'll love to hear from you.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently got some data from a health agency , and they sent it using Voltage SecureMail.Not sure of the exact specifics , but it seems that when they send an email with a secure attachment the file is stripped , stuffed on a repository , then I get a link .
I have to register and sign in , then I can download the attachment .
Personally I 'd rather all attachments worked this way rather than people sending individual multi-megabyte files over SMTP to multiple recipients , most of which wont bother reading them... But I digress .
  So I had a look at the Voltage web site and it seems they may be a solution provider who can synergise your workflow experience management : http : //www.voltage.com/products/ [ voltage.com ]   I 'm sure they 'll love to hear from you .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently got some data from a health agency, and they sent it using Voltage SecureMail.Not sure of the exact specifics, but it seems that when they send an email with a secure attachment the file is stripped, stuffed on a repository, then I get a link.
I have to register and sign in, then I can download the attachment.
Personally I'd rather all attachments worked this way rather than people sending individual multi-megabyte files over SMTP to multiple recipients, most of which wont bother reading them... But I digress.
  So I had a look at the Voltage web site and it seems they may be a solution provider who can synergise your workflow experience management:http://www.voltage.com/products/ [voltage.com]
  I'm sure they'll love to hear from you.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550968</id>
	<title>More info needed</title>
	<author>ulski</author>
	<datestamp>1269113940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>English is not my native language but I&rsquo;ll do my best.
I agree with the people here that told you to find out more about what the company really needs, and maybe your company should think about getting a common IT infrastructure first.  In general it would be a good idea to try to document your processes (what is supposed to happen when we receive this and that type of document? and what will you need to do with these documents? Just store them? or are the documents meant to be edited by multiple sub contractors? For some companies it makes sense to have systems that functions as both crm and document control system. It might also be nice to be link to other types of systems and that is why you would be better off if you have a common it infrastructure. There are many big vendors - some are "general purpose" systems and some focus on specific industries. In the plant/ oil and gas industry contractors and oil companies use systems which can handle documents in ways required be local government. You should check out if your company needs to follow state rules regarding how to handle documentation. Some systems are really good at handling cad files - the best of them got support for reference drawings and revisions as well as functionally needed for controlling documents linked to each other per project. They might also have support for setting up the cad application to follow a drawing standard per project (a type of super template). People here mentioned Documentum and Sharepoint, and there are of course many more and I can add 2 to the list: Bentley Systems (Projectwise) and Software Innovation (Proarc).</htmltext>
<tokenext>English is not my native language but I    ll do my best .
I agree with the people here that told you to find out more about what the company really needs , and maybe your company should think about getting a common IT infrastructure first .
In general it would be a good idea to try to document your processes ( what is supposed to happen when we receive this and that type of document ?
and what will you need to do with these documents ?
Just store them ?
or are the documents meant to be edited by multiple sub contractors ?
For some companies it makes sense to have systems that functions as both crm and document control system .
It might also be nice to be link to other types of systems and that is why you would be better off if you have a common it infrastructure .
There are many big vendors - some are " general purpose " systems and some focus on specific industries .
In the plant/ oil and gas industry contractors and oil companies use systems which can handle documents in ways required be local government .
You should check out if your company needs to follow state rules regarding how to handle documentation .
Some systems are really good at handling cad files - the best of them got support for reference drawings and revisions as well as functionally needed for controlling documents linked to each other per project .
They might also have support for setting up the cad application to follow a drawing standard per project ( a type of super template ) .
People here mentioned Documentum and Sharepoint , and there are of course many more and I can add 2 to the list : Bentley Systems ( Projectwise ) and Software Innovation ( Proarc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English is not my native language but I’ll do my best.
I agree with the people here that told you to find out more about what the company really needs, and maybe your company should think about getting a common IT infrastructure first.
In general it would be a good idea to try to document your processes (what is supposed to happen when we receive this and that type of document?
and what will you need to do with these documents?
Just store them?
or are the documents meant to be edited by multiple sub contractors?
For some companies it makes sense to have systems that functions as both crm and document control system.
It might also be nice to be link to other types of systems and that is why you would be better off if you have a common it infrastructure.
There are many big vendors - some are "general purpose" systems and some focus on specific industries.
In the plant/ oil and gas industry contractors and oil companies use systems which can handle documents in ways required be local government.
You should check out if your company needs to follow state rules regarding how to handle documentation.
Some systems are really good at handling cad files - the best of them got support for reference drawings and revisions as well as functionally needed for controlling documents linked to each other per project.
They might also have support for setting up the cad application to follow a drawing standard per project (a type of super template).
People here mentioned Documentum and Sharepoint, and there are of course many more and I can add 2 to the list: Bentley Systems (Projectwise) and Software Innovation (Proarc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826</id>
	<title>SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box, and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest, I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box , and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest , I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box, and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest, I believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986</id>
	<title>Try the LOPSA mailing list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try posting this on the <a href="http://www.lopsa.org/" title="lopsa.org">LOPSA</a> [lopsa.org] mailing list.  It's an excellent resource, with lots of sysadmins in different environments hanging out.  If you're not <a href="http://www.lopsa.org/joinup" title="lopsa.org">a member</a> [lopsa.org], email me (aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com) if you'd like me to post to the list on your behalf.  You might also want to try the IRC channel #lopsa on Freenode.</p><p> <a href="http://www.lopsa.org/joinup" title="lopsa.org">Membership</a> [lopsa.org] is only $50/year, and access to the mailing list alone is worth every penny.  I'm a member, and it's saved my butt on occasion.  Even if you're not a sysadmin, this is definitely a sysadmin-type question, and I think you'd benefit from being able to ask questions on the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try posting this on the LOPSA [ lopsa.org ] mailing list .
It 's an excellent resource , with lots of sysadmins in different environments hanging out .
If you 're not a member [ lopsa.org ] , email me ( aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com ) if you 'd like me to post to the list on your behalf .
You might also want to try the IRC channel # lopsa on Freenode .
Membership [ lopsa.org ] is only $ 50/year , and access to the mailing list alone is worth every penny .
I 'm a member , and it 's saved my butt on occasion .
Even if you 're not a sysadmin , this is definitely a sysadmin-type question , and I think you 'd benefit from being able to ask questions on the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try posting this on the LOPSA [lopsa.org] mailing list.
It's an excellent resource, with lots of sysadmins in different environments hanging out.
If you're not a member [lopsa.org], email me (aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com) if you'd like me to post to the list on your behalf.
You might also want to try the IRC channel #lopsa on Freenode.
Membership [lopsa.org] is only $50/year, and access to the mailing list alone is worth every penny.
I'm a member, and it's saved my butt on occasion.
Even if you're not a sysadmin, this is definitely a sysadmin-type question, and I think you'd benefit from being able to ask questions on the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551020</id>
	<title>RUNA, nuxeo</title>
	<author>WetCat</author>
	<datestamp>1269114300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can try to make a solution for your problem by using Runa-WFE <a href="http://wf.runa.ru/About" title="wf.runa.ru">http://wf.runa.ru/About</a> [wf.runa.ru]<br>It's free software, and, as far as I know, can handle your tasks.<br>Also you can try to look to <a href="http://www.nuxeo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/" title="nuxeo.org">http://www.nuxeo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/</a> [nuxeo.org]<br>Both products are based on Jboss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can try to make a solution for your problem by using Runa-WFE http : //wf.runa.ru/About [ wf.runa.ru ] It 's free software , and , as far as I know , can handle your tasks.Also you can try to look to http : //www.nuxeo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ [ nuxeo.org ] Both products are based on Jboss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can try to make a solution for your problem by using Runa-WFE http://wf.runa.ru/About [wf.runa.ru]It's free software, and, as far as I know, can handle your tasks.Also you can try to look to http://www.nuxeo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ [nuxeo.org]Both products are based on Jboss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548926</id>
	<title>EPM</title>
	<author>hkabbaj</author>
	<datestamp>1269094020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at  <a href="https://www.uspsepm.com/" title="uspsepm.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.uspsepm.com/</a> [uspsepm.com] document integrity and authentication.  <a href="https://my.inscrybe.com/" title="inscrybe.com" rel="nofollow">https://my.inscrybe.com/</a> [inscrybe.com] supports workflow and multiple signings and incorporates the epm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at https : //www.uspsepm.com/ [ uspsepm.com ] document integrity and authentication .
https : //my.inscrybe.com/ [ inscrybe.com ] supports workflow and multiple signings and incorporates the epm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at  https://www.uspsepm.com/ [uspsepm.com] document integrity and authentication.
https://my.inscrybe.com/ [inscrybe.com] supports workflow and multiple signings and incorporates the epm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549266</id>
	<title>You are on the right path...</title>
	<author>medea</author>
	<datestamp>1269097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but I assume in your case you should probably have a look at something backed by a commercial company which will take the hassle to certify the system and your workflows. Have a look at Alfresco (alfresco.com) which already has some certifications (e.g. <a href="http://www.alfresco.com/media/releases/2009/10/records-management/" title="alfresco.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.alfresco.com/media/releases/2009/10/records-management/</a> [alfresco.com]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I assume in your case you should probably have a look at something backed by a commercial company which will take the hassle to certify the system and your workflows .
Have a look at Alfresco ( alfresco.com ) which already has some certifications ( e.g .
http : //www.alfresco.com/media/releases/2009/10/records-management/ [ alfresco.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I assume in your case you should probably have a look at something backed by a commercial company which will take the hassle to certify the system and your workflows.
Have a look at Alfresco (alfresco.com) which already has some certifications (e.g.
http://www.alfresco.com/media/releases/2009/10/records-management/ [alfresco.com]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553318</id>
	<title>Re:PGP + really any collaboration software</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1269088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Signature is not encryption. Maybe there are legal requirements for paperless office. I know I would have to comply to a law in my country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Signature is not encryption .
Maybe there are legal requirements for paperless office .
I know I would have to comply to a law in my country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Signature is not encryption.
Maybe there are legal requirements for paperless office.
I know I would have to comply to a law in my country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550986</id>
	<title>Have a look at Lotus Forms</title>
	<author>NotesSensei</author>
	<datestamp>1269114060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lotus Forms (not to be confused with Lotus Notes or LotusLive Forms Turbo) is a XForms implementation that has an XML extension for pixel perfect form rendering (there's an add-on that even allows you to scan your empty paper forms for conversion. It can run off a forms server or even without a connection using a forms client. It allows for overlapping digital signatures (you sign your stuff, I cross sign, so you can't change your mind) including signing of attachments. Two aspects are remarkable: Since the form is kept in every file you always will see the original as filled in (so both form and data is signed). Since data is stored in an XForms instance extraction of data is easy using XPath.
Disclaimer: I work for IBM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lotus Forms ( not to be confused with Lotus Notes or LotusLive Forms Turbo ) is a XForms implementation that has an XML extension for pixel perfect form rendering ( there 's an add-on that even allows you to scan your empty paper forms for conversion .
It can run off a forms server or even without a connection using a forms client .
It allows for overlapping digital signatures ( you sign your stuff , I cross sign , so you ca n't change your mind ) including signing of attachments .
Two aspects are remarkable : Since the form is kept in every file you always will see the original as filled in ( so both form and data is signed ) .
Since data is stored in an XForms instance extraction of data is easy using XPath .
Disclaimer : I work for IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lotus Forms (not to be confused with Lotus Notes or LotusLive Forms Turbo) is a XForms implementation that has an XML extension for pixel perfect form rendering (there's an add-on that even allows you to scan your empty paper forms for conversion.
It can run off a forms server or even without a connection using a forms client.
It allows for overlapping digital signatures (you sign your stuff, I cross sign, so you can't change your mind) including signing of attachments.
Two aspects are remarkable: Since the form is kept in every file you always will see the original as filled in (so both form and data is signed).
Since data is stored in an XForms instance extraction of data is easy using XPath.
Disclaimer: I work for IBM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549084</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>TheReaperD</author>
	<datestamp>1269095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint?  I doubt the OP wants to spend $50,000 in dedicated server equipment and software licenses to run this solution in search of a problem called SharePoint.  Several other posters here have offered solutions that will do the job much better and cheaper than SharePoint could ever hope to live up to.</p><p>I hope one day, some good will come out of SharePoint.  There does need to be more integration between different applications.  But, like many Microsoft server solutions, they take 10x the hardware and money to do that same job as other solutions.  I bang my head against it almost every day as I work in an "all Microsoft shop".  What a waste of time and money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint ?
I doubt the OP wants to spend $ 50,000 in dedicated server equipment and software licenses to run this solution in search of a problem called SharePoint .
Several other posters here have offered solutions that will do the job much better and cheaper than SharePoint could ever hope to live up to.I hope one day , some good will come out of SharePoint .
There does need to be more integration between different applications .
But , like many Microsoft server solutions , they take 10x the hardware and money to do that same job as other solutions .
I bang my head against it almost every day as I work in an " all Microsoft shop " .
What a waste of time and money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint?
I doubt the OP wants to spend $50,000 in dedicated server equipment and software licenses to run this solution in search of a problem called SharePoint.
Several other posters here have offered solutions that will do the job much better and cheaper than SharePoint could ever hope to live up to.I hope one day, some good will come out of SharePoint.
There does need to be more integration between different applications.
But, like many Microsoft server solutions, they take 10x the hardware and money to do that same job as other solutions.
I bang my head against it almost every day as I work in an "all Microsoft shop".
What a waste of time and money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549906</id>
	<title>NetDocuments</title>
	<author>bradvoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269105300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at <a href="http://www.netdocuments.com/" title="netdocuments.com" rel="nofollow">NetDocuments</a> [netdocuments.com].  It's SaaS, so you don't have to maintain servers, and sharing documents between multiple offices is trivial.  It includes digital signature functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at NetDocuments [ netdocuments.com ] .
It 's SaaS , so you do n't have to maintain servers , and sharing documents between multiple offices is trivial .
It includes digital signature functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at NetDocuments [netdocuments.com].
It's SaaS, so you don't have to maintain servers, and sharing documents between multiple offices is trivial.
It includes digital signature functionality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549462</id>
	<title>Oracle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269099840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're looking for a paid-for solution, you might go talk to Oracle. They have some interesting options in content management. Not sure if it's the right fit for your case though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking for a paid-for solution , you might go talk to Oracle .
They have some interesting options in content management .
Not sure if it 's the right fit for your case though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking for a paid-for solution, you might go talk to Oracle.
They have some interesting options in content management.
Not sure if it's the right fit for your case though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551838</id>
	<title>Think Enterprise Content Management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have mentioned you will want to look an an Enterprise Content Management platform. For a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET centric show SharePoint can be a good fit. However, stick to basic document management and workflow with SharePoint. Building scalable ECM systems in SharePoint has it share of challeges. Particulary with all content stored in SQL. If you require additional features such as workflow, BPM, Retention, E-Discovery, and Digital Asset Management then look toward Filenet (IBM) or Documentum (EMC).</p><p>Documentum is very scalable driven by a SOA/J2EE backend and JBOSS, so there is quite a bit you can do under the hood. That of course comes at a price as with any Enterprise System. Also, having a strong business case and metrics for sucesss is critical. Just going paperless is not always enough. Think savings of FTE in Accounts Payable with process automation or Contracts Management. Think controls and compliance...</p><p>Ok shameless plug but we have a ton of stuff on your blog on both SharePoint and Documentum www.capps-llc.com/blog (slashdotted here we go)...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned you will want to look an an Enterprise Content Management platform .
For a .NET centric show SharePoint can be a good fit .
However , stick to basic document management and workflow with SharePoint .
Building scalable ECM systems in SharePoint has it share of challeges .
Particulary with all content stored in SQL .
If you require additional features such as workflow , BPM , Retention , E-Discovery , and Digital Asset Management then look toward Filenet ( IBM ) or Documentum ( EMC ) .Documentum is very scalable driven by a SOA/J2EE backend and JBOSS , so there is quite a bit you can do under the hood .
That of course comes at a price as with any Enterprise System .
Also , having a strong business case and metrics for sucesss is critical .
Just going paperless is not always enough .
Think savings of FTE in Accounts Payable with process automation or Contracts Management .
Think controls and compliance...Ok shameless plug but we have a ton of stuff on your blog on both SharePoint and Documentum www.capps-llc.com/blog ( slashdotted here we go ) ... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned you will want to look an an Enterprise Content Management platform.
For a .NET centric show SharePoint can be a good fit.
However, stick to basic document management and workflow with SharePoint.
Building scalable ECM systems in SharePoint has it share of challeges.
Particulary with all content stored in SQL.
If you require additional features such as workflow, BPM, Retention, E-Discovery, and Digital Asset Management then look toward Filenet (IBM) or Documentum (EMC).Documentum is very scalable driven by a SOA/J2EE backend and JBOSS, so there is quite a bit you can do under the hood.
That of course comes at a price as with any Enterprise System.
Also, having a strong business case and metrics for sucesss is critical.
Just going paperless is not always enough.
Think savings of FTE in Accounts Payable with process automation or Contracts Management.
Think controls and compliance...Ok shameless plug but we have a ton of stuff on your blog on both SharePoint and Documentum www.capps-llc.com/blog (slashdotted here we go)... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548960</id>
	<title>OpenOffice.org supports digital signatures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenOffice.org directly supports digital signatures:<br><a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors\_User\_Manual/Writer\_Guide/Digital\_signing\_of\_documents" title="openoffice.org" rel="nofollow">Digital Signing of documents</a> [openoffice.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice.org directly supports digital signatures : Digital Signing of documents [ openoffice.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice.org directly supports digital signatures:Digital Signing of documents [openoffice.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31568018</id>
	<title>Re:PGP + really any collaboration software</title>
	<author>eionmac</author>
	<datestamp>1269271860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'machine generated digital signature' PGP or gnupg or OpenGPG or digital signature does not prove 'a specific human' signed or authorised a document as it is the controller of  the machine that did it. (Pass words are often shared to avoid 'a busy' person problems e.g secretaries sign. As in old days where a person not the King was 'keeper of privy seal' and sealed with a 'spare King's seal' on behalf of King.<br>Biometric sealing by digital signature tied to fingerprint works (unless fingers chopped off or plastic image taken) but is not 100\% secure. The old human problem that to prove actual signature and signer it must be witnessed by another proven person who knows signer to achieve at least one degree of proof.<br>For email gnupg or OpenPGP or such like is adequate as long as you believe or can prove<br>
&nbsp; the  sender is the logged in person. Document signing digital signature systems that are published outside the organisation need the dig sigs to be publicly available on a named server (used for export control documents by some governments)to activate and prove.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'machine generated digital signature ' PGP or gnupg or OpenGPG or digital signature does not prove 'a specific human ' signed or authorised a document as it is the controller of the machine that did it .
( Pass words are often shared to avoid 'a busy ' person problems e.g secretaries sign .
As in old days where a person not the King was 'keeper of privy seal ' and sealed with a 'spare King 's seal ' on behalf of King.Biometric sealing by digital signature tied to fingerprint works ( unless fingers chopped off or plastic image taken ) but is not 100 \ % secure .
The old human problem that to prove actual signature and signer it must be witnessed by another proven person who knows signer to achieve at least one degree of proof.For email gnupg or OpenPGP or such like is adequate as long as you believe or can prove   the sender is the logged in person .
Document signing digital signature systems that are published outside the organisation need the dig sigs to be publicly available on a named server ( used for export control documents by some governments ) to activate and prove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'machine generated digital signature' PGP or gnupg or OpenGPG or digital signature does not prove 'a specific human' signed or authorised a document as it is the controller of  the machine that did it.
(Pass words are often shared to avoid 'a busy' person problems e.g secretaries sign.
As in old days where a person not the King was 'keeper of privy seal' and sealed with a 'spare King's seal' on behalf of King.Biometric sealing by digital signature tied to fingerprint works (unless fingers chopped off or plastic image taken) but is not 100\% secure.
The old human problem that to prove actual signature and signer it must be witnessed by another proven person who knows signer to achieve at least one degree of proof.For email gnupg or OpenPGP or such like is adequate as long as you believe or can prove
  the  sender is the logged in person.
Document signing digital signature systems that are published outside the organisation need the dig sigs to be publicly available on a named server (used for export control documents by some governments)to activate and prove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549322</id>
	<title>Re:All Good Suggestions For the Most Part...</title>
	<author>sphealey</author>
	<datestamp>1269098340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; No common IT infrastructure? I'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything<br>&gt; new company wide. Without a common IT infrastructure you'd have to get a poll for<br>&gt; exactly what each division has (does each division have a common infrastructure, I<br>&gt; hope so) and pray that each division has standardized on something whether it<br>&gt; be *Nix, Windows, Mac or whatever. Once you have that, getting an electronic document<br>&gt; handling system will be much easier as you'll have only to worry about file<br>&gt; formats from one office suite (and possibly PDFs).</p><p>Well, that's one school of thought.  And one which has been on the ascendancy for the last ten years, in part because there are philosophical arguments for it and in part because it fits very well with the business/sales model of the large consulting/outsourcing firms.  And of course if "standardized" means "standardized on Microsoft" then MS is in favor too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>However, there are other theories of business organization, and I have worked for quite large organizations which reject the concept of company-wide standardization.  In their view, such efforts lead directly to lack of flexibility, growth of "preventer of IT services" bureaucracies (or any other service, not just IT), and rapidly inflating costs.  So don't assume that the OP's executives \_want\_ a nice tidy "architecture" for their firm.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; No common IT infrastructure ?
I 'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything &gt; new company wide .
Without a common IT infrastructure you 'd have to get a poll for &gt; exactly what each division has ( does each division have a common infrastructure , I &gt; hope so ) and pray that each division has standardized on something whether it &gt; be * Nix , Windows , Mac or whatever .
Once you have that , getting an electronic document &gt; handling system will be much easier as you 'll have only to worry about file &gt; formats from one office suite ( and possibly PDFs ) .Well , that 's one school of thought .
And one which has been on the ascendancy for the last ten years , in part because there are philosophical arguments for it and in part because it fits very well with the business/sales model of the large consulting/outsourcing firms .
And of course if " standardized " means " standardized on Microsoft " then MS is in favor too ; - ) However , there are other theories of business organization , and I have worked for quite large organizations which reject the concept of company-wide standardization .
In their view , such efforts lead directly to lack of flexibility , growth of " preventer of IT services " bureaucracies ( or any other service , not just IT ) , and rapidly inflating costs .
So do n't assume that the OP 's executives \ _want \ _ a nice tidy " architecture " for their firm.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; No common IT infrastructure?
I'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything&gt; new company wide.
Without a common IT infrastructure you'd have to get a poll for&gt; exactly what each division has (does each division have a common infrastructure, I&gt; hope so) and pray that each division has standardized on something whether it&gt; be *Nix, Windows, Mac or whatever.
Once you have that, getting an electronic document&gt; handling system will be much easier as you'll have only to worry about file&gt; formats from one office suite (and possibly PDFs).Well, that's one school of thought.
And one which has been on the ascendancy for the last ten years, in part because there are philosophical arguments for it and in part because it fits very well with the business/sales model of the large consulting/outsourcing firms.
And of course if "standardized" means "standardized on Microsoft" then MS is in favor too ;-)However, there are other theories of business organization, and I have worked for quite large organizations which reject the concept of company-wide standardization.
In their view, such efforts lead directly to lack of flexibility, growth of "preventer of IT services" bureaucracies (or any other service, not just IT), and rapidly inflating costs.
So don't assume that the OP's executives \_want\_ a nice tidy "architecture" for their firm.sPh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549644</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1269101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint is underrated???? Oh, my god. It's vastly overrated. It's Microsofts proprietary, not well thought of solution on how to do distributed, eh, things with Office document. I've had horrible problems even when doing any kind of version control on documents. I mean, isn't that the whole point of SharePoint? I can delete a document, upload a new one with the same name and it will *revert back* to the old version! Oh, yeah, you can do it online, if you use IE *and* know how to do it.</p><p>Recently I've been using the discussion board of SharePoint to distribute programming tips. I've never had a program refuse *those* particular (perfectly valid) HTML tags - without any warning whatsoever of course. I've made a howto on how to read the posts on the discussion board - never mind posting your own. You ask: what's that got to do with it? Well, the whole implementation of SharePoint lets any apt programmer scream Nooooooooooohhhhhhhhh from behind it's terminal. It's simply *that* bad.</p><p>I mean, I cannot even find anything using the software. I created the discussion board, and I could not get it to the front page, neither could the administrator. It's just a horrible mess. I mean, this is software that refuses to put a PDF icon in front of PDF files! Oh, yee gods, I hate that piece of crap.</p><p>As for the signing and verifying - the request of the Ask SlashDot: do you say that there is a good method of doing just that? Because I haven't seen it, but that might be because it is there and I refused to RTFM - if only to skip reading the EULA that's undoubtedly put right in front of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint is underrated ? ? ? ?
Oh , my god .
It 's vastly overrated .
It 's Microsofts proprietary , not well thought of solution on how to do distributed , eh , things with Office document .
I 've had horrible problems even when doing any kind of version control on documents .
I mean , is n't that the whole point of SharePoint ?
I can delete a document , upload a new one with the same name and it will * revert back * to the old version !
Oh , yeah , you can do it online , if you use IE * and * know how to do it.Recently I 've been using the discussion board of SharePoint to distribute programming tips .
I 've never had a program refuse * those * particular ( perfectly valid ) HTML tags - without any warning whatsoever of course .
I 've made a howto on how to read the posts on the discussion board - never mind posting your own .
You ask : what 's that got to do with it ?
Well , the whole implementation of SharePoint lets any apt programmer scream Nooooooooooohhhhhhhhh from behind it 's terminal .
It 's simply * that * bad.I mean , I can not even find anything using the software .
I created the discussion board , and I could not get it to the front page , neither could the administrator .
It 's just a horrible mess .
I mean , this is software that refuses to put a PDF icon in front of PDF files !
Oh , yee gods , I hate that piece of crap.As for the signing and verifying - the request of the Ask SlashDot : do you say that there is a good method of doing just that ?
Because I have n't seen it , but that might be because it is there and I refused to RTFM - if only to skip reading the EULA that 's undoubtedly put right in front of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint is underrated????
Oh, my god.
It's vastly overrated.
It's Microsofts proprietary, not well thought of solution on how to do distributed, eh, things with Office document.
I've had horrible problems even when doing any kind of version control on documents.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of SharePoint?
I can delete a document, upload a new one with the same name and it will *revert back* to the old version!
Oh, yeah, you can do it online, if you use IE *and* know how to do it.Recently I've been using the discussion board of SharePoint to distribute programming tips.
I've never had a program refuse *those* particular (perfectly valid) HTML tags - without any warning whatsoever of course.
I've made a howto on how to read the posts on the discussion board - never mind posting your own.
You ask: what's that got to do with it?
Well, the whole implementation of SharePoint lets any apt programmer scream Nooooooooooohhhhhhhhh from behind it's terminal.
It's simply *that* bad.I mean, I cannot even find anything using the software.
I created the discussion board, and I could not get it to the front page, neither could the administrator.
It's just a horrible mess.
I mean, this is software that refuses to put a PDF icon in front of PDF files!
Oh, yee gods, I hate that piece of crap.As for the signing and verifying - the request of the Ask SlashDot: do you say that there is a good method of doing just that?
Because I haven't seen it, but that might be because it is there and I refused to RTFM - if only to skip reading the EULA that's undoubtedly put right in front of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886</id>
	<title>Lotus NotesDomino</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lotus Notes/Domino by IBM  takes care of all that...including external branches, ditigital signatures, track of who has been reading it, who where the previous readers etc etc... etc...we have been using it extensively and provides everything you just described.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lotus Notes/Domino by IBM takes care of all that...including external branches , ditigital signatures , track of who has been reading it , who where the previous readers etc etc... etc...we have been using it extensively and provides everything you just described.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lotus Notes/Domino by IBM  takes care of all that...including external branches, ditigital signatures, track of who has been reading it, who where the previous readers etc etc... etc...we have been using it extensively and provides everything you just described.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551680</id>
	<title>Try Nextlabs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you're looking for an Information Compliance solution.  Take a look at http://www.nextlabs.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you 're looking for an Information Compliance solution .
Take a look at http : //www.nextlabs.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you're looking for an Information Compliance solution.
Take a look at http://www.nextlabs.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31562276</id>
	<title>Re:PGP + really any collaboration software</title>
	<author>WhiteHorse-The Origi</author>
	<datestamp>1269181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bu that would be too easy. And how can he do a cost/benefit analysis when the cost is $0?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bu that would be too easy .
And how can he do a cost/benefit analysis when the cost is $ 0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bu that would be too easy.
And how can he do a cost/benefit analysis when the cost is $0?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056</id>
	<title>All Good Suggestions For the Most Part...</title>
	<author>DarkKnightRadick</author>
	<datestamp>1269095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but everyone is ignoring the pink elephant in the room.</p><p>No common IT infrastructure? I'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything new company wide. Without a common IT infrastructure you'd have to get a poll for exactly what each division has (does each division have a common infrastructure, I hope so) and pray that each division has standardized on <em>something</em> whether it be *Nix, Windows, Mac or whatever. Once you have that, getting an electronic document handling system will be much easier as you'll have only to worry about file formats from one office suite (and possibly PDFs).</p><p>As for signing of documents, PDF is the only format that handles that internally, though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys, though I think the hassle would not be welcome.</p><p>To summarize:<br>1. Get company to implement standard IT infrastructure company wide<br>2. Get IT department to implement EDHS<br>3. ???<br>4. Profit! --- very important to companies, apparently less so to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but everyone is ignoring the pink elephant in the room.No common IT infrastructure ?
I 'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything new company wide .
Without a common IT infrastructure you 'd have to get a poll for exactly what each division has ( does each division have a common infrastructure , I hope so ) and pray that each division has standardized on something whether it be * Nix , Windows , Mac or whatever .
Once you have that , getting an electronic document handling system will be much easier as you 'll have only to worry about file formats from one office suite ( and possibly PDFs ) .As for signing of documents , PDF is the only format that handles that internally , though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys , though I think the hassle would not be welcome.To summarize : 1 .
Get company to implement standard IT infrastructure company wide2 .
Get IT department to implement EDHS3 .
? ? ? 4. Profit !
--- very important to companies , apparently less so to /.ers : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but everyone is ignoring the pink elephant in the room.No common IT infrastructure?
I'd tell them to attack that before implementing anything new company wide.
Without a common IT infrastructure you'd have to get a poll for exactly what each division has (does each division have a common infrastructure, I hope so) and pray that each division has standardized on something whether it be *Nix, Windows, Mac or whatever.
Once you have that, getting an electronic document handling system will be much easier as you'll have only to worry about file formats from one office suite (and possibly PDFs).As for signing of documents, PDF is the only format that handles that internally, though I guess you could get people to get their own PGP keys, though I think the hassle would not be welcome.To summarize:1.
Get company to implement standard IT infrastructure company wide2.
Get IT department to implement EDHS3.
???4. Profit!
--- very important to companies, apparently less so to /.ers :p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862</id>
	<title>What? Are you trying to do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you have serious requirement overload. You need to go back and ask them what they ACTUALLY want.</p><p>For example, what is a "document?" Who is signing it? How long should the audit trail be? How many millions are you investing in this needlessly complex internal system?</p><p>What you're after simply doesn't exist and likely never will. Even if it did implementing it would be hugely expensive and time consuming.</p><p>What I don't understand is how this can replacing a paper system? Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you have serious requirement overload .
You need to go back and ask them what they ACTUALLY want.For example , what is a " document ?
" Who is signing it ?
How long should the audit trail be ?
How many millions are you investing in this needlessly complex internal system ? What you 're after simply does n't exist and likely never will .
Even if it did implementing it would be hugely expensive and time consuming.What I do n't understand is how this can replacing a paper system ?
Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you have serious requirement overload.
You need to go back and ask them what they ACTUALLY want.For example, what is a "document?
" Who is signing it?
How long should the audit trail be?
How many millions are you investing in this needlessly complex internal system?What you're after simply doesn't exist and likely never will.
Even if it did implementing it would be hugely expensive and time consuming.What I don't understand is how this can replacing a paper system?
Paper systems lack almost all of the features you requested... So clearly do do not NEED this stuff and thus we came around full circle to requirement overload.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548876</id>
	<title>Altec's Doclink</title>
	<author>bensode</author>
	<datestamp>1269093480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not free but it is a nice system with strong permission controls and customizable workflows.</p><p><a href="http://www.altec-inc.com/products/doc-link/index.html" title="altec-inc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.altec-inc.com/products/doc-link/index.html</a> [altec-inc.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not free but it is a nice system with strong permission controls and customizable workflows.http : //www.altec-inc.com/products/doc-link/index.html [ altec-inc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not free but it is a nice system with strong permission controls and customizable workflows.http://www.altec-inc.com/products/doc-link/index.html [altec-inc.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852</id>
	<title>Memos and Correspondence....</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1269093240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I crazy for suggesting email?  It's trivial to lock it down to a LAN if needed, and if some documents need signed and passing out to the real world, that sounds like PDF to me.  You know, because PDF is portable.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Yes, I know you need a "history."  And there are so many email archiving systems out there, that one of them must be good for actually going through that data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I crazy for suggesting email ?
It 's trivial to lock it down to a LAN if needed , and if some documents need signed and passing out to the real world , that sounds like PDF to me .
You know , because PDF is portable .
  Yes , I know you need a " history .
" And there are so many email archiving systems out there , that one of them must be good for actually going through that data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I crazy for suggesting email?
It's trivial to lock it down to a LAN if needed, and if some documents need signed and passing out to the real world, that sounds like PDF to me.
You know, because PDF is portable.
  Yes, I know you need a "history.
"  And there are so many email archiving systems out there, that one of them must be good for actually going through that data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548992</id>
	<title>I am afraid...I see trouble ahead</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1269094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division, I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence, although it is not my area of expertise (I have a CompSci degree, but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software).</p> </div><p>From what you say, I can conclude that your company's staffing is anaemic in the IT department. Because of this, I suggest that you abandon this project for the time being as you build up man power and expertise in IT. Hire more folks so that they can get to know the business logic and flow of information at your company then kick start this project.</p><p>Take a clue from Munich with its Linux migration efforts.</p><p>Bottom line: A drastic change in the way you work will create lots of headache for you given that as you say, "...Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division...".</p><p>I worried for you, but wish you the best at the same time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division , I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence , although it is not my area of expertise ( I have a CompSci degree , but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software ) .
From what you say , I can conclude that your company 's staffing is anaemic in the IT department .
Because of this , I suggest that you abandon this project for the time being as you build up man power and expertise in IT .
Hire more folks so that they can get to know the business logic and flow of information at your company then kick start this project.Take a clue from Munich with its Linux migration efforts.Bottom line : A drastic change in the way you work will create lots of headache for you given that as you say , " ...Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division... " .I worried for you , but wish you the best at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division, I have been commissioned with evaluating the available technology to manage and authenticate all correspondence, although it is not my area of expertise (I have a CompSci degree, but for many years have specialized in transportation modeling software).
From what you say, I can conclude that your company's staffing is anaemic in the IT department.
Because of this, I suggest that you abandon this project for the time being as you build up man power and expertise in IT.
Hire more folks so that they can get to know the business logic and flow of information at your company then kick start this project.Take a clue from Munich with its Linux migration efforts.Bottom line: A drastic change in the way you work will create lots of headache for you given that as you say, "...Since I am the only resemblance we have to an IT department at my division...".I worried for you, but wish you the best at the same time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549690</id>
	<title>Re:Try the LOPSA mailing list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; email me (aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com)</p><p>Why don't you write it out properly - aardvark@saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; email me ( aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com ) Why do n't you write it out properly - aardvark @ saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; email me (aardvark atsign saintaardvarkthecarpeted dot com)Why don't you write it out properly - aardvark@saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31555556</id>
	<title>Approvals tracking</title>
	<author>sdanic</author>
	<datestamp>1269113400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not really looking for full-blown document management. You're looking for electronic approvals (usually called eSignatures).<br>The simplest way to do it is embed the eSignature (approval) in the word document or in a pdf.</p><p>Look at silanis for embedding in word documents<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.silanis.com/solutions/e-signatures-desktop.html" title="silanis.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.silanis.com/solutions/e-signatures-desktop.html</a> [silanis.com]<br>Look toward adobe for embedding in pdf.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/digitalsignatures/" title="adobe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/digitalsignatures/</a> [adobe.com]</p><p>I would only use these for the important approvals that legally require signatures. For anything that's just an out-of-date internal process, consider something simpler. (eg. email approval is good enough).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not really looking for full-blown document management .
You 're looking for electronic approvals ( usually called eSignatures ) .The simplest way to do it is embed the eSignature ( approval ) in the word document or in a pdf.Look at silanis for embedding in word documents     http : //www.silanis.com/solutions/e-signatures-desktop.html [ silanis.com ] Look toward adobe for embedding in pdf .
    http : //www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/digitalsignatures/ [ adobe.com ] I would only use these for the important approvals that legally require signatures .
For anything that 's just an out-of-date internal process , consider something simpler .
( eg. email approval is good enough ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not really looking for full-blown document management.
You're looking for electronic approvals (usually called eSignatures).The simplest way to do it is embed the eSignature (approval) in the word document or in a pdf.Look at silanis for embedding in word documents
    http://www.silanis.com/solutions/e-signatures-desktop.html [silanis.com]Look toward adobe for embedding in pdf.
    http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/digitalsignatures/ [adobe.com]I would only use these for the important approvals that legally require signatures.
For anything that's just an out-of-date internal process, consider something simpler.
(eg. email approval is good enough).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31556760</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box, and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest, I believe.</p></div><p>I'm not really sure whether I should start laughing or start weeping right now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box , and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest , I believe.I 'm not really sure whether I should start laughing or start weeping right now .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft SharePoint can handle most of what you need out of box, and you can configure and customize what you need for the rest, I believe.I'm not really sure whether I should start laughing or start weeping right now ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31602780</id>
	<title>Plone</title>
	<author>baekholt</author>
	<datestamp>1269421740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that you have worked with Plone already, and it satisfies most of your requirements, it will probably make most sense to stick with Plone and possibly have it customised  to any particular content signing needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that you have worked with Plone already , and it satisfies most of your requirements , it will probably make most sense to stick with Plone and possibly have it customised to any particular content signing needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that you have worked with Plone already, and it satisfies most of your requirements, it will probably make most sense to stick with Plone and possibly have it customised  to any particular content signing needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551768</id>
	<title>Re:OpenOffice.org supports digital signatures</title>
	<author>kgo</author>
	<datestamp>1269077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course when he tells them it costs twenty bucks per user per year to get an X.509 certificate, that option will probably go off the table...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course when he tells them it costs twenty bucks per user per year to get an X.509 certificate , that option will probably go off the table.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course when he tells them it costs twenty bucks per user per year to get an X.509 certificate, that option will probably go off the table...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>SharePoint is underrated-- it really has gotten pretty goood. Although you say that the firm doesn't have a common infrastructure, it's likely that you've standardized on Microsoft Office.  If you're using (or can upgrade to) Office 2007 (or 2010), sharepoint plays extremely well with Office.  SharePoint will handle all your office documents.  If you need a comprehensive solution for scanned paper or integration with other applications, I'd look at some of the commercial document management solutioms (Documentum).
<br> <br>
Don't cheap out and try to put together some homebrew solution.  Remember as <a href="http://www.cartalk.com/" title="cartalk.com">Click and Clack the Tappit Brothers</a> [cartalk.com] say, it's the cheap man/women who spends the most.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint is underrated-- it really has gotten pretty goood .
Although you say that the firm does n't have a common infrastructure , it 's likely that you 've standardized on Microsoft Office .
If you 're using ( or can upgrade to ) Office 2007 ( or 2010 ) , sharepoint plays extremely well with Office .
SharePoint will handle all your office documents .
If you need a comprehensive solution for scanned paper or integration with other applications , I 'd look at some of the commercial document management solutioms ( Documentum ) .
Do n't cheap out and try to put together some homebrew solution .
Remember as Click and Clack the Tappit Brothers [ cartalk.com ] say , it 's the cheap man/women who spends the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint is underrated-- it really has gotten pretty goood.
Although you say that the firm doesn't have a common infrastructure, it's likely that you've standardized on Microsoft Office.
If you're using (or can upgrade to) Office 2007 (or 2010), sharepoint plays extremely well with Office.
SharePoint will handle all your office documents.
If you need a comprehensive solution for scanned paper or integration with other applications, I'd look at some of the commercial document management solutioms (Documentum).
Don't cheap out and try to put together some homebrew solution.
Remember as Click and Clack the Tappit Brothers [cartalk.com] say, it's the cheap man/women who spends the most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549016</id>
	<title>Possibly Lotus Domino; Need more info</title>
	<author>thebiss</author>
	<datestamp>1269095100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll need to elaborate on two things to get good answers:<br>
&nbsp; - What is a document?  Rich text, or scanned paper, physical paper, or something else?<br>
&nbsp; - What is authentication?  Tracking electronic versions from creation, through revisions, to finalization, or something different like confirming that physical document "A" is the same as physical document "B"?</p><p>I know of solutions for the case where documents are soft copy rich text with images and and attached scanned documents.   A Lotus Notes database can be easily created to track such documents, prevent over-writes, track revision histories, etc.  I work for a pretty big consulting firm, and we use Domino-based systems for things like this all the time.</p><p>Some caveats -<br>- Domino's is easily setup, but requires product knowledge to perform well and scale.   How big is your firm?<br>- Users will need to have Notes IDs to work with the system, as ID (certificate) + password based PKI is the foundation of Domino's authentication mechanism.</p><p>Some benefits -<br>- Depending upon the setup, users will be able to work with documents via your corporate intranet.<br>- Depending upon the setup, replication (think synchronization) can enable users to keep local copies of this data, for access while they are outside of the intranet.</p><p>Access for outsiders is more complex.<br>- If the outsiders are trusted (e.g. auditors,) the solution may be to give them Notes IDs and grant them access to the intranet and this system.<br>- If the outsiders are end-users (e.g. E&amp;Y clients submitting their 2010 US tax forms,) then you may be into custom application space.  I'll skip the plug for my company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll need to elaborate on two things to get good answers :   - What is a document ?
Rich text , or scanned paper , physical paper , or something else ?
  - What is authentication ?
Tracking electronic versions from creation , through revisions , to finalization , or something different like confirming that physical document " A " is the same as physical document " B " ? I know of solutions for the case where documents are soft copy rich text with images and and attached scanned documents .
A Lotus Notes database can be easily created to track such documents , prevent over-writes , track revision histories , etc .
I work for a pretty big consulting firm , and we use Domino-based systems for things like this all the time.Some caveats -- Domino 's is easily setup , but requires product knowledge to perform well and scale .
How big is your firm ? - Users will need to have Notes IDs to work with the system , as ID ( certificate ) + password based PKI is the foundation of Domino 's authentication mechanism.Some benefits -- Depending upon the setup , users will be able to work with documents via your corporate intranet.- Depending upon the setup , replication ( think synchronization ) can enable users to keep local copies of this data , for access while they are outside of the intranet.Access for outsiders is more complex.- If the outsiders are trusted ( e.g .
auditors , ) the solution may be to give them Notes IDs and grant them access to the intranet and this system.- If the outsiders are end-users ( e.g .
E&amp;Y clients submitting their 2010 US tax forms , ) then you may be into custom application space .
I 'll skip the plug for my company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll need to elaborate on two things to get good answers:
  - What is a document?
Rich text, or scanned paper, physical paper, or something else?
  - What is authentication?
Tracking electronic versions from creation, through revisions, to finalization, or something different like confirming that physical document "A" is the same as physical document "B"?I know of solutions for the case where documents are soft copy rich text with images and and attached scanned documents.
A Lotus Notes database can be easily created to track such documents, prevent over-writes, track revision histories, etc.
I work for a pretty big consulting firm, and we use Domino-based systems for things like this all the time.Some caveats -- Domino's is easily setup, but requires product knowledge to perform well and scale.
How big is your firm?- Users will need to have Notes IDs to work with the system, as ID (certificate) + password based PKI is the foundation of Domino's authentication mechanism.Some benefits -- Depending upon the setup, users will be able to work with documents via your corporate intranet.- Depending upon the setup, replication (think synchronization) can enable users to keep local copies of this data, for access while they are outside of the intranet.Access for outsiders is more complex.- If the outsiders are trusted (e.g.
auditors,) the solution may be to give them Notes IDs and grant them access to the intranet and this system.- If the outsiders are end-users (e.g.
E&amp;Y clients submitting their 2010 US tax forms,) then you may be into custom application space.
I'll skip the plug for my company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31570886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31556760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31562276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31557940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31568018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31559018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0520249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31551678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31570886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31550594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31557940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31568018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31562276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31559018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31556760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31549220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31553228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0520249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0520249.31548842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
